No doubt the insurance companies and RNC HQ were thrilled to hear that the senate is not going to finish their work on healthcare reform before taking a summer break. They have been salivating for the chance to take advantage of the recess to spend millions to once again drag out the debate, mutilate it piece by piece and kill any chance of real healthcare reform (that includes a public
option) by scaring the American people into thinking they should just be happy with the status quo and continue to suffer while the insurance companies continue to reap substantial profits.

No wonder Americans are disgusted with Congress. What would you think if you were one of the millions of Americans who are without healthcare, or are about to lose their healthcare, barely hanging on because of your healthcare costs, or the businesses struggling to stay afloat? I bet they'd like to be able to take a "recess" too.

The best evidence that President Obama did not advance the cause of health care reform in his press conference is the not unexpected announcement today that the Senate will not pass a bill before the August recess. He failed to excite the American people to insist on immediate action. Perhaps, the President's almost bloodless approach to the issues in the press conference was because he already knew the delay was at hand. Now the opponents of reform have time on their side.

Professor Berry, there are opponents of substantive reform and opponents of the House bill, and not even rhetorical convenience can align them. The House opted for an employer mandate because making insurance truly personal and portable, as John McCain proposed last Autumn, offended unions, particularly public employee unions that had become adept at hiding the true costs of their contracts from the public. I'd call that caving into a special interest. For similar reasons it opted for a top-heavy income surtax to cover the cost of the uninsured, a precarious and unprecedented linkage that exposed what its leadership really wanted: taxpayer-funded health insurance for all in which the Huxtables would pay for Archie Bunker's health care (and everything else). Pretending there are no alternatives to these measures, as the President did last night, actually weakens his ability to fight the true opponents of reform.

President Obama did advance his cause by simply appearing to know what he was talking about. As per his reputation as a persuasive public speaker, he appeared in firm command of the facts and figures he presented. Nor did he get flustered by some of the pointed questions suggesting that health care reform should be linked to crippling long term budgetary deficits.

He provided a sharp visual contrast to his critics on the right who have foamed at the mouth about how his legislative agenda will lead to the moral and financial ruination of the country.

Remember, television is a cool medium. And Obama came across as the coolest person in the room. That calm, reassuring image should serve the President well when the nitty-gritty details of health care reform are worked out on Capitol Hill in the coming months.

I didn't see the President's press conference, so I cannot testify as to whether the critiques of the President's emotional presentation, as offered by Ben Smith were accurate. However, we can look to the transcript to examine the President's arguments

For one thing, as mentioned by the New York Times, the President misstated the degree to which medical societies support his vision of health care reform. Contrary to the President's contentions, Medicare service will be cut in rural areas, and in teaching hospitals. The President seriously overstated the degree to which Republicans were allowed to assist in the crafting of legislation, just as he seriously overstated the degree to which insurance companies are profiting in the current system. And finally, the President's contentions that he ought to take credit for deficit reduction rest on the absurd premise that ten years down the line, the United States would have as many troops in Iraq as it did when President Bush left office, a premise utterly and completely undercut by the Status of Forces Agreement that the Bush Administration concluded with the Iraqi government before leaving office.

During the course of his opening statement, the President made not one mention of the CBO's devastating conclusion that the current health care reform plans will do nothing whatsoever to save money or control health care costs for the long term. The President claimed that "you haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans," but he surely authorized the attacks against Republicans from the White House's political shop and the Democratic National Committee. The President completely dodged Jake Tapper's point that under the Obama plan, "there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care," not telling anyone why Americans should sacrifice those things, and potentially place themselves in a position where they may receive worse care. When it comes to the issue of saving money through the elimination of unnecessary tests, the fact of the matter is that no one knows how much money is going to be saved through the elimination of such tests. Relatedly, the President made no mention of the fact that Massachusetts, which has a universal coverage system that serves as a template for what the Obama Administration and Congress are trying to implement, has seen costs increase by 42% since the enactment of universal coverage, which has forced Massachusetts to work to ration care.

Quite laughably, the President claimed that because health care executives visiting the White House got photographed, the meetings between the executives and the White House are transparent. This is nonsense. Indeed, ever since coming into office, the Obama Administration has been ditching its pledges for greater government transparency at an alarming rate. Its lack of transparency when it comes to the issue of health care is of a piece with its lack of transparency on a whole host of other issues as well.

When the President praises the work done by the Mayo Clinic, he ought to have pointed out--without being forced--that the Mayo Clinic is severely critical of the health care reform plans the Obama Administration supports. Mayo especially opposed the concept of a government-run insurance plan.

Note that when the President was asked by Steve Kaufman whether he could "guarantee that this legislation will lock in and say the government will never deny any services, that that's going to be decided by the doctor and the patient, and the government will not deny any coverage," his answer was a very long-winded "no." This, quite frankly, ought to terrify people. Instead, he made statements about how doctors would likely perform unnecessary tonsillectomies in order to make money. I have no doubt that there are doctors who perform unnecessary procedures for purely pecuniary benefits. But those doctors are few and far between, and it was patently unfair for the President to slander the medical community with his broad-brush comments.

All in all, this performance should not inspire confidence in the idea of a government-run health care plan. It would be nice if the President and Congress decided that it is more important to get health care reform done right than it is to get it done quickly. But much of Washington appears to be obsessed with speed over substance on the issue of health care reform. This approach will benefit none of us.

President Obama gave a thoughtful, informed news conference that showcased his strategic vision and specific knowledge. The biggest takeaway - which he should stress over and over - is that millions of Americans who play by the rules and pay their premiums will immediately have health security because insurers won't be able to drop coverage for pre-existing conditions. Every story needs a hero and a villain - the healthcare heroes are the patients, doctors, and nurses while the villains are those who block reform and allow insurers to raise premiums and deny or drop coverage. Obama should constantly remind Americans that his healthcare reform is squarely on the side of patients, doctors, and nurses - and that doing nothing is too high a price for people to pay with their health and treasure.

The White House Press Corps, such as it is, should turn in their press passes. They are merely extras on the set of the Obama Administration’s reality TV program. And the alphabet networks should be steamed that they gave up and hour of expensive prime time for this rambling infomercial.

And that obvious set-up by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune, Obama’s hometown newspaper was disgusting to watch and reading her column today is equally disgusting. What a homer!

Obama spoke before he knew all the facts and implied that racism was to blame. The President should remember the old cowboy saying, “Never miss a good chance to just shut up.” And just to be bipartisan, that applies to Republican Senator Jim DeMint and his stupid “Waterloo” comment a few days ago.

I could give a whit about the Henry Gates incident. I care more about the fate of Bowe Bergdahl an American GI who is a prisoner of the Taliban than some Harvard professor. Why didn’t she ask about him?

Sorry Bowe and all you other GIs fighting and dying in Afghanistan you just aren’t that important to the White House press lapdogs. When you become tenured professors in the Ivy League they might be interested.

Not one reporter asked about Secretary of State Clinton’s comments on a “defense umbrella” for our friends in the Middle East. Does this mean the Administration has resigned itself to a nuclear-armed Iran? Was the Secretary speaking out of school? Is this a trial balloon floated to gauge what the Europeans and the Russians and Chinese think? Have you told Israel of this emerging policy?

Not one reporter asked about Pakistan’s growing concern about Taliban fighters being driven into Pakistan.

Not one reporter besides the aforementioned Ms. Sweet asked about anything other than healthcare.

Here’s a tip to the reporters. Just because the White House Ministry of Propaganda says it’s a press conference about healthcare doesn’t mean you can’t ask about any other issue.

The press needs to stand up and start doing their jobs before the last shred of trust the public has for them disappears. If it helps the White House Press Corps should just think of him as a Republican.

The President absolutely advanced his cause last night. He was articulate, thoughtful, thorough and yes, passionate. I completely disagree with Ben Smith’s take on this since he says that the President failed to make is personal. Well here is an excerpt of his remarks:

"So let me be clear: This isn't about me. I have great health insurance, and so does every member of Congress. This debate is about the letters I read when I sit in the Oval Office every day, and the stories I hear at town hall meetings. This is about the woman in Colorado who paid $700 a month to her insurance company only to find out that they wouldn't pay a dime for her cancer treatment -- who had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life. This is about the middle-class college graduate from Maryland whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs and woke up from the emergency surgery that he required with $10,000 worth of debt. This is about every family, every business, and every taxpayer who continues to shoulder the burden of a problem that Washington has failed to solve for decades. "

How much more personal can you get?! The President was right on in underscoring the unsustainability of the current status quo, acknowledging Americans’ fears and then making his indisputably two key selling points:

1) that this plan will not increase the deficit, and

2) that with this plan, Americans’ cannot be denied coverage of pre-existing conditions and that if they like their current plan and their current doctor then nothing will change for them.

For such a complicated and academic issue as Health Care Reform is, the President made it very simple: either we keep the status quo and continue breaking the deficit ceiling and bankrupting America’s families and businesses, or we have the guts to embrace real reform that puts families first, and ensures the long-term fiscal health of our country.

Instead of focusing on “breaking the President,” Republicans need to focus on helping to rebuild this country, never mind their own party, especially since they were part and parcel of supporting the irresponsible fiscal policies that got us to where we are in the first place.

The Barack Obama that the nation saw last night was the Professor Obama and the campaign-debate Obama – cerebral, finger-wagging, pedantic, reaching for the brain rather than the heart. I was reminded of the 1988 presidential debate when Michael Dukakis was asked if his opposition to the death penalty would be unphased were his wife, Kitty, to be raped. Dukakis’ carefully reasoned, albeit totally emotionless, response cost him that debate.

If Obama is to succeed in mobilizing support for his health care package he needs the equivalent of a half-time, locker-room speech that sends the players back onto the field with blood in their eyes.

Like a fine performance of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," we applaud the acting and the author but we're not quite sold on fairies and potions. The President did a good job of describing the problem but not defending the particulars of his solution, which seems to change with each interview. Perhaps it's also the overexposure and or his saying one thing and seeming to do another, but appearance by appearance, word by word, he appears to be losing his grip on country's attention. Bill Clinton thought he could talk his way out of anything, and now, in that press conference last night, I started to sense in Obama something between Clinton's hubris and a disturbing intellectual self-delusion.

Specifically, the President seems to believe that by casting the debate between good and evil, special interests and "the people," the public option and no option at all, he can convince Americans to swallow whatever he puts on the table. As numerous other Arena contributors have reminded us today, NO ONE likes the status quo, not employers, not providers and not even insurance companies, who surely sense the fragility of their circumstance. Almost all would like to have universal coverage, including portability and coverage of pre-existing conditions, and cost control (although more to the point, they would like someone else to pay for it). The question is how, and there the debate can be an honest one. What I haven't heard this president say is "reasonable people can disagree," and a reasoned tone is not a substitute.

His argument for the public option is that the nearly 1,400 different health insurers out there, profit and non-profit, need competition. That's like saying hot dog vendors need a public option. It presumes collusion that does not exist. His argument is that it's reasonable to ask only millionaires to pay for covering the uninsured, but income surtaxes -- especially one that pushes the combined federal, state and local marginal rate to nearly 60 percent -- for a specific budget line item is foolish fiscal policy and foolish health care policy. If the federal government needs more revenue it should do it by simplifying and flattening the tax code and not go down California's road of earmarking taxes. No wonder Americans aren't convinced it will stop there.

It was a work-a-day effort--thorough, studied, tedious for sure, uninspiring, at times misleading, and finally pragmatic. The prose not the poetry of governing. For a couple of months on this page, I'm sure to the aggravation of some, I've argued two points about health care.

First, to win the health care debate, the issue must be framed about people who have insurance but are at risk of losing it and/or who continue to face, from their corporate insurer plans, higher premiums for fewer procedures and services more than about the uninsured. Second, the status quo and the effect on our economy are untenable. The president--at least, I was glad to see--spoke to both of these issues repeatedly. In that respect, he advanced the cause of national health care. And he kept the legislative momentum inching forward. What that final plan will look like in three months...that's still an open question. But, something will be passed.

The president is also correct to argue that doing nothing is not an option--that reforming health care and health insurance is essential for the 21st century American economy. Yes, it's a Democratic plan. Yes, it's going to be expensive. But the Republican Party in Congress has provided no other plan--and it hasn't for a generation. The Republican Party in Congress has done nothing about national health care. To all those who complain about a straw argument, who complain about the Obama plan or the Pelosi plan or the Baucus plan, I ask: Where was the George Bush national health care plan? Or, when Republicans held power in Congress, where was the Dennis Hastert health care plan? the Tom Delay health care plan? the Newt Gingrich health care plan? the Trent Lott health care plan? the Robert Dole health care plan? The national Republican Party has no interest in supporting national health care. Period.

But here's the problem, politically: When the Democrats create some kind of national health care plan in the next few months, and nearly all the Republicans vote against, from then on until the end of days the debate will be about improving policy and adding services in the national plan. Time and again, Democrats will frighten the public, as they have with social security, with the notion that Republicans plan to take away their health care. That electoral strategy has worked for social security since the beginning, and it'll work for national health care, too. I suspect that's one reason the Republican Party wants to stop national health care. Henceforth, it's a losing issue for them. The problem won't be Democrats at some political Waterloo over health care. It'll be Republicans in political Siberia because of it.

I don't think President Obama helped his cause at all with last night's performance. Regardless of the face he puts on his proposal to radically overhaul the nation's health care system, it is rapidly falling out of favor with the American people, who think less of it -- and more of their own coverage and access to care -- with every bit of information that comes out. No wonder the President is so desperate to get these incomplete and unread overhaul bills compiled into one measure, passed, and signed by the end of the week; his popularity is sinking along with that of his overhaul proposal, inspiring the supposedly "post-partisan" chief executive to accuse opponents of the proposal not only of defending a supposedly-untenable status quo, but of working to "destroy [his] presidency."

As the AP pointed out in its post-conference Fact Check, "Obama's assertion[s in the press conference on] Wednesday...[are] hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric." Further, his decision to change tack on the health care overhaul from high costs and a lack of universal health insurance -- both of which the non-partisan CBO have said the bills in Congress will do nothing to fix -- to attacking physicians for practicing bad medicine is a head-scratcher tactically, but entirely in keeping with the government's attitude toward health care overall.

An example of this came in the spring, when three states, led by Georgia, filed (and won) an appeal of a District Court ruling that doctors, rather than bureaucrats, know what is medically best for their patients. The thrust of the states' argument in the case, which Obama's attacks on supposedly underregulated medical professionals last night mirrored, was summed up in a brief written by the attorneys representing the state of Florida. "Treating physicians," they wrote, "cannot be trusted with [the decision of what medical treatment their patients need]. When left to their own devices, they advocate for their patients, and deem all manner of unproven, dangerous, ineffective, cosmetic, unnecessary, bizarre and controversial treatments as 'medically necessary.'"

While bureaucrats "will consider doctors' determinations," said attorney Robert Highsmith in oral arguments in the case (called Moore v. Meadows) on March 24, the "final arbiter" of medical decisions is and should be "the state."

This scary notion is already being espoused by states, and one which the Obama administration is rushing to enshrine into federal law. As poll after poll shows, the American people want no part of this. The President can dismiss such right-thinking dissent as so much "chatter" all he wants; the fact is, both he and his policies are far out of line with the American mainstream, and the people are recognizing that more by the day, regardless of how many prime time pressers Obama holds with his allies in the media tossing him softball questions and letting his every assertion go unchallenged.

In 1947, Harry Truman went to Arthur Vandenburg, chairman on the Senate Foreign relations Committee to ask him what he needed to do to get his support for the Greek-Turkish Aid Bill (later called The Truman Doctrine) that involved a huge amount of money. Vandenburg said, "Mr President, You've got to scare the hell out of the American people." Obama did not achieve that last night. It was a minor fright.

Obama made it clear that he intends to push a complicated Healthcare bill, with a cost of $1.3 trillion (largely borrowed from the Chinese), and will further expand Medicare (which every politician, Dems and Republicans alike, recognizes as unsustainable). And .here comes the good part.will do it all without any cost to 97% of the population. Or, put another way, all the huge, new revenue that will be required for this bold experiment will come from taxes on the man behind the tree. And, Obama wants to avoid comparisons to other failed or failing initiatives, like the bailouts or Stimulus that have increased the deficit and not delivered the promised results. But then, that was the President's goal: create a false sense of urgency and push the idea quickly to a vote, before the details can be known, understood and debated in earnest. The question now, to turn to Lincoln, is whether or not we are in a period when "you can fool all of the people some of the time".

Definitely. He brought a clear focus to what is in health care reform for the insured and over 85 percent of voters are insured. He laid out clear markers on getting rising health care costs under control. He made it clear that we need reform now and the cost of delay.

President Obama advanced the health care cause a little. This is truly policy-making in a perfect storm, however: the issues are complex; the stakes are high; the sums are large; the deficit is huge; and the opponents are powerful. The next month will tell us something important about the ability of the US political system to digest several big issues at once.

He also advanced his own personal political cause, with another intelligent and lucid performance at the podium. This was Obama's fourth formal press conference in his six months as president - the same number that his predecessor managed in eight years. Is this the be-all and end-all of governing? Nope, but it's a nice change.

The spectacle also served to put the president's recent drop in public support into perspective. Sure, his numbers have slipped a little - but so have his rivals', and in the White House he has the world's best sound stage, and his political skills are just as sharp as they were last week, and the other contenders for his job continue to self-destruct like messages on Mission Impossible. I'd say that Barack Obama's glass is well over three-quarters full.

My wife and I married young and had no money or property. Early on we agreed - any time someone told us a deal had to be done right away, any time we were pressured to sign immediately, we would walk away. No deal worth having comes without time to consider it fairly.

The PATRIOT Act had to be passed immediately. Many people later regretted it. Iraq had to be invaded - no more delay! TARP had to be passed immediately. Many later regretted it. Obama said the stimulus had to passed immediately - voted on within hours of its introduction. Then the President sat on it for 3 days so he could sign it on an "historic" date. And many have regretted it since.

Obama is supposed to be so cool in a crisis, but where's the cool? Where's the voice of calm, pointing out that we need to get it right, that we're in this for the long haul? That voice is shrieking for immediate action, even though no serious person thinks health care reform is needed for short term economic recovery. Of course, we all know why "we can't wait" - it's because the more people learn about the bill, the less they like it. It's the President, and those ideologically commited to nationalizing health care at any cost who can't wait, lest their dreams be shattered. Those serious about getting reform right can wait.

It this health care bill is a good one, it will last until September. The President's conference last night had an underlying tone of desperation to it. He may yet get a bill - he's not beaten yet - but he didn't help himself last night.

Headline in the Post this morning: “Obama Seeks to Calm Fears on Health Reform.” Well, he’d better calm those fears, because otherwise, health care will be his Waterloo. And so the President trotted out every focus-grouped turn of phrase, and every hand-picked anecdote, that he thought might help his cause.

But unfortunately, the Post--and more to the point, reality--hurt his cause in the adjoining front-page story, headlined, “Wall St. Jacks Up Pay After Bailouts.” By now, we all know the drill: Wall Street up, Main Street down, and no end in sight. And how’s that stimulus package, the one that Joe Biden says was based on a “misreading” of the economy, working out? Taken together, the bailouts and the stimulus package have enriched hedge funders, bolstered mayors--and impoverished everyone else.

So as we listen to Obama make his soothing pitch on health care, we should remember that he has made a hash out of his two previous gargantuan-government efforts. That’s “0 for 2.” With that sort of track record, do we really trust him to go “best of 5”?

Ben Smith's commentary puts the reaction of so many Americans in context. The president was distracted by data which failed to make his case, and came off both shallow and defensive at times. Absent was any sign of the passion he evokes when he really believes in something. It was as if he may have that shred of doubt that his proposals do not meet the test for good health care policy, that perhaps his big government plan is not the right formula. Why else was he so unconvincing, sort of like when your spouse tells you she really does like the gift you just gave her when what she really wanted was quite different.

President Obama was the educator-in-chief last night. He did an excellent job explaining the nuances of health care reform and what he wishes to accomplish. His strong performance provides political cover for wavering moderate Democrats from conservative areas.

The President made no compelling argument for moving the Democrats' legislation. He talked in generalities and would not commit to a funding mechanism when asked. His description of health care reform was at odds with what is actually moving through the House. The reality is that there will be no free lunch for anyone, particularly for small business owners who will get slammed with new mandates, taxes and regulatory costs.

The President was as articulate, thoughtful, and elegant as ever. But if you asked average Americans to describe exactly what his health reform plan would do, some could say that it's a government plan that would reduce healthcare costs, expand coverage, and increase choices, all somehow paid-in-full by raising taxes on Bill Gates and Donald Trump. Few, if any, would be able to say exactly how the plan impacts their own health care. And that's why the President is having a huge problem selling his plan to the American people.

The President is selling a product that no one wants. He is desperate and refuses to pull the plug on healthcare legislation that even Democrats concede is DOA. It is not the Republicans that are holding up Obamacare it is Democrats. After the Chairman of the CBO, (a Democrat appointment), came out and publicly contradicted the White House, that gave Democrats the “cover” to jump ship. The Congressional Budget Office stated that Obamacare would add significantly to our national budget and to our every growing national deficit. The American People are getting uncomfortable with the President and his policies and it is showing in recent polls. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe America is on the wrong track. They are not confident with the President’s handling of the economy or healthcare. He is the salesman in chief yet, the American People are starting to look elsewhere. The President has put all his chips on healthcare when he should be placing them on the economy. The bet has been made and he will have to fold his hand because he can’t win. The August recess will come without a deal. Members will go back to their districts and get an earful from their constituents on the economy. When Members return to Washington, it will not be healthcare that they want to focus on, it will be the economy and jobs.

What the President needed to do tonight, and to some extent did, was to help Americans understand that health care reform is about them, not just about the uninsured. Most Americans are healthy and insured and receive reasonably good medical care when they need it.

But if health care costs continue to grow at the rate they are growing now and if Americans continue to lose coverage at the rate they are now losing it (44,230 a month according to a study published this morning), every American will suffer if Congress fails to act.

The problem the President faced is that health care is incredibly complex, and what needs to happen for it to be reformed cannot be reduced to a sound bite. The press, however, cannot seem to realize this. What we saw tonight, therefore, was a combination of embarrassingly ignorant questions (like whether the President could guarantee that his program would not result in any changes in health care to individuals), and long, complex, answers that attempted to capture some of the nuance of the problems involved in reform, but probably did not do much to mobilize support for it.

The key point, which the President made in his introductory statement, is that the bills currently endorsed by one Senate and two House committees promise stability and security for every American. These programs also offer a serious attempt to bend the health care cost curve that will otherwise bankrupt the country, just as health care costs are now bankrupting many individual Americans. The President also needed to help Americans understand that public plan choice is not about a government take-over of the health care system, but rather a serious attempt to bring down health insurance costs by introducing efficiency and competition into private insurance markets that offer neither. The President made these points, but they must continue to be made repeatedly and forcefully until Americans finally understand this reform is not just about the poor, sick, and the uninsured; it is about all of us.

Unfortunately, the President wasted this expensive opportunity of primetime coverage to attack straw men rather than sell the public on his plan. When will he realize that nobody, let me repeat, nobody, wants the status quo. That doesn't mean we need an inferior government controlled health care system. The AP is already saying tonight that his rhetoric did not match his plans. And why the media didn't ask him what plan he'll have when he becomes a private citizen escapes me. In the end, if you were with him you still are, if you weren't, you're still not. Too bad that is the real status quo.

It's easy to find, as Gallup just did, that majorities of the public want everything -- guaranteed health insurance, that covers all possible problems, that lets you choose your own doctor and the treatments you need, that lets you keep your current plan -- and they want it cheap. Or they're OK with letting someone else pay. So when President Obama promises health care that does all those things, he can find a receptive audience. Still, when you ask people whether they really believe the federal government can provide more health care to more people, and save money in the process, most of them don't. And that's the problem Obama faces. And the reason he's so insistent on doing it NOW is that he fears that the longer people mull that conundrum, the more they will realize the unlikelihood of a vast new federal program bringing down the cost of anything.

Obama also said that his administration "inherited an enormous deficit....have not reduced it as much as we need to and we would like to." That's a half-truth at best. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors. But driving the deficit into the stratosphere is Obama's decision. If he thought the deficit was too high, he didn't have to push a $787 billion stimulus bill and a $3.6 trillion budget. If he thinks the effects of the stimulus are worth the enormous, unprecedented, unimagined deficits, then let him stand up and say so instead of pretending that he's been trying to "reduce it."

The President's primetime presser and short speech on healthcare are strong evidence that his administration believes that it is are facing the first major political obstacle of his presidency. This is saying quite a bit in view of the major issues that this Administration has had to address. The President opened his speech by reminding everyone that he inherited the current crisis. He then proceeded to make a succinct case for reform: we cannot afford the status quo. He tried to reassure Americans that government will not make healthcare decisions for those who have health insurance and are happy with it. He tried to communicate to the American people that he shares they're concerned with the federal deficit and that is a significant reason for fixing healthcare. The President also took some shots at the Republicans. The basic message there is that the Republicans do not have the American people's best interest in mind. I think this further raises the stakes and the fact that he felt it necessary to do it is indicative of the success of the Republicans in raising fears about healthcare reform.

The President has now completely laid his credibility on the line and he has raised the stakes. He is all in. The speech was Obama at his best. But this is no longer a campaign. Speeches will only be effective to the extent that they presage results. So, the Obama administration is left with three fundamental questions.

First, can he get the Democrats in his own party, the conservative Democrats specifically, to circle the wagons? Democrats can have healthcare reform if they can muster party discipline. Second, will this speech and the nationwide barnstorming that will follow have an impact on public opinion? If the President cannot move the needle on public opinion, he can't provide cover for Democrats would are ideologically allied with him but need the political cover. Moreover, unless he can move public opinion to his side the Republican attack will only be bolder and more effective. The third is the President staking his very young and promising presidency on this issue? If he fails to deliver on healthhcare and the economy takes a turn for the worse (or the employment rate gets worse), Democrats will have reason to worry, a lot.

The President presented his argument as well as anyone could, but the arcane nature of health care coverage makes this a difficult sell in the news conference format. For a complicated topic of this nature it would be interesting to see the White House devise a more creative approach to the subject matter, not in lieu of the Q&A but as an adjunct to it. For instance, the news conference might have kicked off with a short video that personalized the issue, with multimedia presentations reinforcing the message on-line. Or perhaps he could have taken a few e-mail questions from citizens in addition to those asked by reporters. My point is this: in attempting to persuade Americans that the health care crisis transcends politics as usual, the President must find innovative ways of making his case. Otherwise this runs the risk of being just one more ho-hum Washington press conference that vanishes after a single news cycle.

Obama's performance was masterful. In my forty years of watching American politics in Washington, I haven't seen another president who comes close to his combination of intelligence, knowledge, character, lucidity, good sense and political skill. He managed both to be on message and responsive to questions. It will take a good deal more of this public leadership as well as tough and good faith negotiations with his Democratic colleagues in Congress (and possibly a handful of Senate Republicans) to achieve a significant measure of success on health reform but he is giving the country the best shot at serious reform in more than a half century.

There were some important points, most important the fact that the status quo is a decision and one that will cost the country a significant amount of money. But overall it is hard to believe that this will change the minds of any legislators one way or the other, or push public opinion toward the bill. In the end, Obama will need a big bold speech outlining the vision behind this reform. I can't help but wonder, however, if the "stupid" comment will cause the president some political trouble that he doesn't need.

It is very important that President Obama reminded people that the alternative to his plan is the status quo and that this status quo means that health care costs essentially double over the course of the decade. He also pointed out that the status quo will eventually bankrupt both the public and private sectors. General Motors would have had $20 billion more in profits (or fewer losses) over the last decade if our per person costs were the same as in Canada. There is no way the United States can compete when we pay 2-3 times as much for health care as everyone else in the world. It is important that President Obama pointed this fact out.

Dean, if the President really did say, as you put it, that "the alternative to his plan is the status quo" then he's apparently insisting that "it's my way or the highway." That's insulting to every ally the President ought to be looking for outside of the usual liberal core, and I'm equally sure that Max Baucus and everyone else who wants to see greater coverage, security, competition and cost mitigation would say that's also a lot of bunk. Finally, it takes real chutzpah to use cost control as an argument for the public option when it looks so much like Medicare, the same fiscal monster that will start to take us all down in less than a decade. Our president is better and smarter than that, and as should be our health care reform.

Tonight's presser was simply more of the same from the self-styled "agent of change" and "post-partisan politician": Pure politics, unwavering liberal ideology, appallingly transparent scare tactics, demonization of a nameless opposition, and an argument so thick with straw men that the President had better wait until he's several hundred meters away to light his next cigarette, lest the entire building go up in flames.

Obama's declaration that the health care overhaul debate is "not about [him]," because he has "great health insurance, and so does every member of Congress" is pure canned comedy.

First of all, the claim that this is "not about" him is laughable on its face, given his accusation that those in his own party who don't drop their objections to the fact the health overhaul bills currently in Congress will cause costs and deficits to skyrocket while utterly failing to improve coverage and care are "going to destroy [his] presidency."

Second, everybody knows Obama and Congress have, as the President put it, "great health insurance." The problem is that the coverage he and his Congressional allies are attempting to foist on the rest of us is far from "great." If it were on par with what he and Congress are receiving now, then neither Obama nor his Congressional allies would object to Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Fleming's (R-LA) amendments that would automatically disenroll all federal elected officials from the President on down from their current "great health insurance" and replace that insurance with the Democrats’ proposed "public option" — government-run insurance plan — as their sole source of health coverage.

Like the failed "stimulus package," President Obama is set on imposing his will on both Congress and the American people, and ramming through a thousand-plus page bill that would be transformational to our economic system before any -- including those expected to vote on it -- have had a chance to read through it, let alone assess the short- and long-term consequences (both intended and unintended).

The reason for this is clear. Unlike the "stimulus," the health care overhaul isn't a case of "not wasting a crisis," as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel so bluntly framed the "stimulus" debate earlier this year. Rather, Obama is seeking to shove his health care overhaul through Congress, and to impose it on the American people, as quickly as possible because every day that goes by it -- like him -- becomes less popular with those who will have to deal with its rules, regulations, and intended and unintended effects.

The fact that a majority of Americans don't want any part of Obama's government-centric health care overhaul masquerading as "reform" hasn't stopped this elected executive or his allies among those who supposedly represent the will of their constituents. Instead, it has made the thin-skinned, hyper-partisan President Obama ratchet up his rhetoric even higher, taking on a full blown "You're Either With Us or Against America" stance that cannot help but remind Americans of the left's hated caricature of his predecessor.

Ivonne De La Rosa (guest)
Physician , CA:

I listen to the opening statement and what amazed me is that in some of his comments it was obvious he has not read H.R.3200 in its totally. Some of his assumptions are wrong and he used the same old arguments with non-specific information to make his points. No specifics just platitudes , I hate the use of scare tactics , yes scare tactics like talking about somebody without insurance that will die without treatment.
The president continues to say that everybody agrees with him on this plan, AARP, AMA and the nurse association, but I can assure you that the majority of the members of this groups do not agree with this particular bill.
Slow down take the time and create a program that really helps the American people. Don't let hubris and haste make this a waste of time.

Carla Mynott (guest)
Housewife , MS:

President's News Conference
Anyone that has watched their mother die from cancer, with insurance, let alone without insurance, will doubt President Obama's passion to provide each American with affordable health care.

Jonathan Wolfman (guest)
Writer/Editor , MD:

The president is making a very strong case this evening for the overall benefits of health care reform as well as an equally strong argument for a public benefit. Pennsylvania is a good example of why a public health care option is critical for making quality care available and affordable. While there are numbers of health insurers in Pennsylvania today, there are two large health insurance companies that account for just over 70% of the coverage in the state. Two. This is about as close to a monopoly as it gets under law and while legal, it certainly keeps all Pennsylvanians' costs higher and likely far higher than if these companies were forced to compete with a public option. Certainly people pleased with the care these two companies give them may choose to keep their plans; if there were a public plan, however, it is almost certain that even for these people, pleased with these companies, premium and out-of-pocket costs would decrease. As to uninsured Pennsylvanians, of course, a public option may be even more critical. I haven't yet researched other states' insurance situations. At the same time, it would make some sense to think that Pennsylvania isn't unique. Monopolies and near-monopolies are a good idea in Major League Baseball--in fact, Congress agreed with that idea long ago. It works for baseball because it's in the public's interest as well as owners'. In health care, near-monopolies have never been and they should end.

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
retired , TX:

If your talking about the ability to stand in front of the media and the American people and not say anything, but still confuse everyone on how he's going to pay for his health care, then he advanced his cause quite well. When President Obama first started speaking, he had this why am I having to repeat myself look on his face. After that, the babbling started and no one came away with a better idea about President Obama's health care then he did. President Obama still hasn't gotten the idea that just because he was elected President, there are going to be some independent thinkers out there that are going to disagree with him. Even in his own party. Winning an election doesn't mean what I want is what all American's want. While President Obama was going around the world apologizing for this country and condemning our past and our old ways that can't deal with global warming or any crisis that we have today, he totally forget why this country is so great. The health care groups are not our enemies. They have done some good things for this country. When is President Obama going to praise them for the services they have provided the American people. American's aren't going to other countries for their health care, like people from other countries are coming to this country for theirs. The rich, which President Obama throws out there as honey so that the taste of his health care goes down smoother aren't the enemies of this country either. When President Obama condemns the health care groups for being profit driven and wants to level the playing field by giving the people government insurance, what does that say about his attitude about our way of life. It's important to remember it's not only the rich, the health care groups, and the free market President Obama attacks in his speeches, it's our way of life. Hasn't President Obama said if we are going to live unhealthy lives, then we are going to have to pay for doing so. In other words, taxes on our way of life. President Obama said in his speech, it's not about him. He's wrong. It's about him and going too far to the left to suit even those who voted for him.

Fred Croft (guest)
Managing Partner, PVM Partners , CA:

In re the President's new conference on Wednesday:
The president failed to make his case tonight. He failed because he talked about some vague "health reform" and not specifics of what's in the package. He alluded to evidence-based medicine without talking about how that fits in his plan. He, once again, asserted that he's a better actuary than the CBO and that his plan will lower costs, while the CBO and its real actuaries think otherwise. He doesn't address wellness incentives, or how the ADA makes it more difficult to include penalties for bad (and expensive) lifestyle choices. And he doesn't address who'll be left out, since none of the plans claims it will cover all of the working uninsured.
We need less soaring rhetoric and more specifics. We need to understand exactly who pays, and what we'll all do if the rosy scenarios are superceded by an ugly and expensive reality should this thing be implemented. America wants health care reform. It doesn't want a free lunch for the same old players, with no serious improvement. The president needs to provide better answers regarding what he's got in mind.

Christopher Donofrio (guest)
Real Estate Professional , NY:

Did President Obama advance his cause last night? No.

Anthony Noel (guest)
business columnist , NC:

The stark difference between comments in The Arena today and those in my own living room last night beautifully illustrates the degree to which the esteemed (or maybe they're just "steamed"!) conservatives here STILL do not understand what happened to the American political landscape last year - let alone the depth of the intellect that now calls the White House home. Mr. Obama will win this issue - trust me, history will consider "fight" too strong a word - the same way he won the election. He'll build a coalition of support for his plan from the groups that matter, several of which he enumerated. Opponents can, as they have here, call the plan liberal, partisan, socialist, DOA, or whatever else they can dream up, but it won't change the fact that Mr. Obama knows who he has to sell - and it isn't his critics. He needs only to keep the people who voted for him in the fold (which he is doing, in a walk); convince three or four GOP Senators that they'll be on the correct side of history if they join with him; and keep winning endorsements from the kinds of groups he mentioned last night. That's really about it, he knows it, and he's taking care of business. It was especially good to see him begin, in earnest, his offensive on the insurance companies - asking them to justify ever-higher costs, which they of course cannot do, and calling them out on the precious time and truckloads of money they consistently waste on three and four identical tests. That's the stuff that resonates outside the Beltway, folks. Maybe y'all should get out here once in a while.

Peter Harnack (guest)
Sales , CA:

Are you kidding? This president is outright lying. He's dishonest and will not even answer a question. Plus, he can hardly speak without a teleprompter. He is simply interested in taking over the healthcare of every person in the U.S. and wants to let people who are old or have a long term problem die. (with pain pills of course).
If you think this is revenue neutral, you are smoking too much pot.

richard roberts jr (guest)
sales associate mens clothing , IA:

I have two responses to the President's press conference.
The first centers on what I think is lacking in this conversation. That is the need for a moral argument regarding the need to provide health care for all Americans. The current system does several things that I believe are terribly wrong. First, the system rewards those who have the funds to pay for healthcare and penalizes those who don't. The fact is that many cannot afford healthcare, if even if they wanted it. Having worked in healthcare for many years, I have seen first hand that for those with the funds to pay for it, the best healthcare possible can be obtained. For those who can't pay, they suffer the consequences of reduced access to the kind of healthcare that could save their lives.
Secondly, insurance companies have reduced healthcare coverage to a numbers game. And Doctors both know it and fight against it every day. Life-saving procedures are put off because the insurance companies won't pay for it. Doctors often spend agonizing time on the phone arguing with healthcare providers so that they can do the procedures they believe are necessary to give their patients the kind of care that Doctors want desperately to give them. These decisions are often made by insurance employees who are not "on the ground" so to speak. That is, they have not seen the patient, spoken with the patient or taken part in their day-to-day care. Their decisions to deny or approve care are based soley on electronic charts, tests and the insurance company's guidelines. Further, they represent the insurance company, not the patient. Therefore, decisions are made based on what is good for the company and not what is good for the patient.
Lastly, for those who fear that the government will begin to make their healthcare decisions for them, it is important to note that they are not free to make them now. In the world of healthcare, insurance companies are running the show. They decide who will get care, what kind of care that will be and whether or not it will be paid for. Having the government as competition may, in fact, begin to change this.
I do think that President Obama was right to suggest that under the current system, which has 47 million uncovered Americans, those who are paying for healthcare are paying more because of the cost to provide healthcare to those without it. Insurance companies and hospitals pass those costs on to their customers. Certainly, the uneven distribution of these expenditures is worth both noting and changing.
My disappointment with President Obama is not that he has not sought to overhaul the healthcare system, but, that he has not been forceful enough in making the moral case to do so.
I wished that he had pushed harder, not from a political point of view, but from a place of justice and mercy.

Donald Johnson (guest)
Blogger, businessword.com , CO:

For anyone half way familiar with the health deform bills before Congress, Obama sealed his reputation for being slick, slippery and dishonest. But the folks who elected him and believe every word he utters probably are as strongly for the president's virtually single-payer plan as they were before the press conference. Independents think for themselves more than partisan Republicans and Democrats, and the polls show that they're thinking they like ObamaCare less and less. I suspect that after tonight's disingenuous performance by the president, many independents are more worried than ever about ObamaCare. They're thinking that if the president can't be honest about what he wants in health care deform, how honest will he be when he starts to implement it. Obama's got to hope that he has inspired his hard core supporters enough to get them out to beat on Democrats who aren't buying ObamaCare. The Intrade futures market where speculators bet on health care deform enactment by Dec. 31 is 46.2 bid, 48 asked, up a bit from 45 bid a couple of days ago and up from betting that there's about a 31% chance of enactment by Dec 31 a couple of weeks ago. So, at the moment, the betting is moving in the president's direction.

toni tyler (guest)
Retired Public Servant , VA:

No President can 'air' the current committee debate or place a 'line in the sand' and that was not the purpose of the News Conference. Many missed the 'link' to our National Economy, The listed benefits to all workers that have any Health Insurance, The ..."I will veto...." if... "...a burden on Middle Workers..." "...adds to the Deficit." Re-read The Conference or Watch It Again- with eyes open.

Lee Olyer (guest)
Engineer , CO:

In response to Christine Pelosi: Race may still matter in America, but stupidity matters everywhere else. When a cop asks you to show some ID - you shut your mouth, reach for your wallet and show him your ID. Gates is a Harvard professor and he can't figure that out? Our hyper-sensitive culture has bred an army of permanent victims who see profiling, bias and racism in every corner and every situation. The cops were responding to a break-in call; its not unreasonable to ask for ID when they get to the location. Guys like Gates can't come to grips with the notion that the country has moved on - nobody cares if you're black, white or whatever. The racial grievance mongering industry is going the way of the buggy whip.

Layton Lang (guest)
Healthcare Policy Expert , TX:

Let me first affirm that I am a life long Republican, but I do understand the ramifications of inaction in controlling unbridled healthcare spending. I believe we have all forgotten that we have been waiting for free market forces and self reform to reduce the spending curb. Guess what? These theories have not been working. So, it is only practical that we look to another catalyst to spur change. What change are we all truly seeking? Most would agree that it is cheaper healthcare insurance premiums.
Based upon many comments posted on this section, I have drawn the conclusion that most of you are not prepared for the difficult decisions we are going to face to meet Mr. Obama's policy principals. Therefore, I predict that a catastrophic event will have to occur to effectuate change. As we know, such an external event manifested itself, when the American Auto industry fell into financial ruin. The auto makers’ management admitted that they were well aware of its internal problems. The barrier to change was the fact that the stakeholders' objectives were not in line. Therefore, a corporate bankruptcy brought the industry to its knees to force all parties to bargain. The positive aspect of this is an industry that will emerge focused on developing customer centric cars; cars that will travel 100 miles per gallon; cars that will reduce emissions by 60 percent.
So I ask, are Americans willing to wait until a catastrophic event occurs before material change in the US healthcare industry is accepted.

Jozef Sliwkowski (guest)
College Professor , MA:

Yes, I want reform
Yes, I want costs to go down
Yes, I want more people covered
Yes, I want improved quality
Wanting it does not make it so -- why is that so hard for the president to comphrehend tis . Actually he does -- he is smart -- and he has an agenda --- an agenda that I can no longer subscribe to.
Before entered teaching, I was a practicing engineer and marketeer. If an engineer learns anything is that a complicated problem has to be divided into its parts ---- and, more importantly, you rarely will get the solution right the first time and so you have to test it out first
Why didn't the press ask how his plan is different than what Massachusetts has done -- and how he will avoid the cost overruns
Why doesn't the president offer to switch all government employees (of course except for himself) over to a "public plan" and see how that works for
Why doesn't someone ask
"Where is such a plan working"
and finally, as I enter my golden years, does his comment --"Spend on what makes you healthy" apply to the person who is has (actualarily) 20 or so years to go to be considered less valuable than a new born
If the choice were between me and one of my 15 grandchildren -- no question,
save the grandchildren -- but that is my choice -- not some bureaucrat
Reform, Test, Refine and then do it step at a time
I am considering moving to New Hampshire where my vote can count. For now, I will make my voice heard
God Bless America

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.